Guys, your missing the point. The US is the way it is because this is the natural progression of Capitalism. Imperialism is the result of Capital seeking new sources of resources and labor to exploit.
It is 2021. We can stop pretending that it's 1921.
You are wrong. Much like Marx.
Marx was wrong. Much like Freud.
The difference between the followers of Freud and Marx is that while the first took to heart his insistence on the scientific nature of inquiry the followers of Marx routinely reject the "
wissenschaflich" part of "
wissenschafltlicher Sozialismus".
Anything that is genuinely scientific is going to self-examine and rework its internal inconsistencies as well as adopt new body of knowledge. Dogmatism and orthodoxy are traits of religions, not science.
Marx sought to develop
scientific socialism, not religious socialism.
There was already a religious form of socialism during his time and he called it "utopian socialism" and found it completely unproductive and harmful.
In response to that movement Marx sought to develop a
scientific foundation for the study of socioeconomics. Even if he failed to get most things right - again, much like Freud - he did not fail in establishing the core principles.
The very same principles which I see rejected by almost everyone who uses his work to explain reality. The "Marxists" behave like fundamentalist Christians (teleevangelists, evangelical sectarians etc) not like christian scholars (Augustine, Aquinas etc). They are all about the superficial form, and not about the substantial core. And that unfortunately is the graves irony of history that make Marx spin in his grave so fast that you could power a city.
Marx had the correct idea that human socioeconomics is materialist in nature. He also understood that it is evolutionary. He understood that it is mathematical. And because of that it can be studied, understood and influenced. It can be directed to better outcomes than those which would spontaneously emerge through natural selection among competing lineages.
That's the revolutionary part of Marx' work - the core. Not the ideological part - the surface. Nothing annoys me like the "Marxists" who when challenged with the core of Marx' work dismiss criticism and say "read theory" because they never read it themselves because they are only interested in channeling their narcissistic egos and playing saviours.
Look at me, look how righteous I am. I am going to build heaven on Earth.
With what knowledge? The handful of phrases you memorized? These people don't even understand what they mean. They just like barking in unison as part of their own violent mob. Just look at Chinese history in 20th century and tell me who has done more good for the country? The young fools staging struggle sessions with the Little Red Book in their hands or the patient workers getting up every day to continue building a better society even though it might benefit only their children?
Who was the real Marxist and who was the poser?
What's wrong with Marx' view:
Capital doesn't exist in separation from human consciousness. Capital is a product of human consciousness. Much like value is. Oil in nature is much less valuable than water. For humans water was more valuable than oil throughout most of history. It is only recently that it gained value and in time it will lose value again. What value does gold have that is not connected to highly social functions?
The reason why "capitalism" can emerge - or more specifically why we can call one situation but not the other "capitalism" - is human behaviour. Humans behave one way or another and we call it - incorrectly in all instances - one "ism" or "another".
Harmonious and collaborative behaviour - Marx would call it socialism or communism. Disharmonious and competitive behaviour - Marx would call it capitalism or imperialism.
But in reality there are no "isms". There is only beaviour. And "isms" are bad way to describe it. Too imprecise, too unscientific, too easy to be turned into religious cults.
Marx understood that consciousness plays a role hence the entire notion of superstructure in his dialectics. But he didn't understand just how fundamental that role is.
On human behaviour:
Human behaviour is influenced by childhood formation.
People who have been brought up in pathological conditions do not pass beyond animal-like stage of their emotional instincts and behave like predators. All "capitalists" are predators with pathological childhoods. This is why they are obsessed with material gain, are unempathetic and engage in rule-breaking.
They have been brought up by exploitative parents which engaged in transactional relationships with children. As a result they view all human relations as transactions which can be "won" or "lost" . They also fundamentally share the belief - which in psychiatry is defined as "narcissism" - in their own unique place in the world - as a defensive mechanism arising from being deprived of emotional support at the critical stage.
People who have been brought up in healthy family settings are fundamentally shaped by unconditional support from their parents and the conditions of mutual respect and love. They are much more focused on fostering those aspects of their lives, are empathetic and follow rules. Because they were brought up by loving parents who saw the children as equals even as the children were totally dependent on them, completely powerless and easy to exploit.
On America:
America was settled and shaped by two groups of people:
1. Religious fundamantalists who couldn't come to agreement with the rest of society.
2. People who followed them in search of a "better life".
The first group is self-explanatory. They were narcissistic fanatics who saw themselves as above others and used religion to draw this separation when wealth and power were not available to them.
The second group is not so intuitive but we can explain them as well. The absolutely revolutionary insight here is that "better life" is a subjective term. In a healthy family and a healthy community "better life" can be found through mutual support. In a healthy family you can live on less because you have supportive environment. In an abusive family and a toxic community "better life" is not possible because the less you have the harder people fight to get it - because their instincts are fundamentally predatory and animalistic, not human.
America was a slave society and the country was founded to defend slavery. No matter what the young hustlers funded by France aka "Founding Fathers" thought about themselves they wouldn't achieve anything without the support of wealthy slave owners. Washington was the richest man in America and a huge slave owner and he funded a significant portion of the Continental Army.
Therefore what causes America to be America is not capital or imperialism. It is the mentality of the people who live there. There's a reason why Canadians have traditionally been more "normal" than Americans. Canada was not the promised land for the millions of deluded and selfish "millionaires in progress" that came to America in search of their "American dream".
This is why America was more imperialistic and aggressive as a small, young, irrelevant country at its inception while numerous countries with more "capital" were more peaceful.
When you look at the rise of colonial empires you will find that culture, and not capital, is at the core. Culture drives capital to productive or destructive ends and culture is created by human psychology and social networks.
And if you don't agree that people almost devoid of "capital" can become murderous, rampaging, parasitic imperialists let me leave you with one word.
Mongols
You'll find a lot of commonality between the Mongols and the Americans. Much more than you would ever thought possible.
